A claim made earlier this week by Russia’s Ministry of Defence, alleging that President Vladimir Putin’s helicopter came under attack from Ukrainian drones during a visit to Kursk region, has been exposed as a staged media event, according to a report by The Moscow Times corroborated by four independent sources within the Russian government and Kremlin structures.
The incident, widely broadcast on a state television channel, was presented as a daring episode in which the Russian president found himself “in the epicentre of a massed enemy drone assault”. However, government insiders speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, described the event as a calculated performance intended to portray Putin as a leader who personally shares the dangers faced by the Russian public during wartime.
Putin’s visit to the Kursk region marked his first trip to that area since the launch of full-scale hostilities with Ukraine in 2022. The region has frequently been targeted by Ukrainian drone strikes in recent months, and official media presented the president’s arrival by helicopter as occurring under fire. However, all available information suggests that the visit was subject to the highest levels of security planning and precaution.
“No one would ever allow such criminal negligence,” said one official familiar with the presidential protection protocols. “Not even in a nightmare scenario.”
According to The Moscow Times, the Ministry of Defence disseminated its “sensational” claim via VGTRK, stating that the president’s helicopter had been caught in a Ukrainian drone barrage. The same narrative was echoed by Kremlin-aligned journalist Andrei Kolesnikov in Kommersant. Kolesnikov, a long-standing member of the Kremlin press pool, repeated the claim that Ukrainian UAVs had been observed during the trip — though he notably did not travel to Kursk himself, later clarifying that he had “seen the drones in video footage”.
This disclosure adds to suspicions that the portrayal of a life-threatening episode was part of a broader media choreography rather than a real-time occurrence. Two sources informed The Moscow Times that the usual Kremlin press pool and official video production team were excluded from the trip. Instead, footage was recorded by alternative personnel, including members of the presidential security service.
The production was aimed at reinforcing a wartime image of Putin as an embattled head of state willing to share the risks of conflict with his people. The simulated attack was reportedly designed to resonate with a domestic audience increasingly affected by the war’s real consequences: disruptions to civil aviation, telecommunications outages, and rising casualty reports.
Russian authorities have struggled to maintain a coherent internal narrative about the war, particularly as Ukrainian strikes have begun to target infrastructure and military assets deeper inside Russian territory. In this context, presenting Putin as actively engaged in and personally threatened by military operations may be seen as an attempt to preserve his image as a hands-on commander-in-chief.
Ukrainian officials were quick to deny any involvement in an attack on Putin’s helicopter. The Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security in Kyiv described the Russian report as disinformation and dismissed any suggestion that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had targeted the Russian leader during his visit.
The Kremlin has not commented on the revelations by The Moscow Times, and state media continue to broadcast the original footage, showing Putin disembarking from a helicopter and meeting with regional officials. The video, however, contains no independent evidence of nearby drone activity or combat.
The apparent staging of the drone incident highlights a broader trend in Russian information strategy, where state-controlled media seeks to construct narratives of resilience, heroism, and national unity under fire — often with limited regard for factual accuracy. The deliberate exclusion of professional journalists and camera crews from the trip suggests a preference for controlled messaging, where both the content and its interpretation can be managed from within the security apparatus.
If verified, this latest episode would further erode the credibility of official wartime reporting in Russia, which has already faced scrutiny from independent observers and foreign intelligence assessments. It also underscores the extent to which the Kremlin may be willing to blend propaganda and performance to maintain control over the public perception of its leadership during a protracted and politically costly conflict.
